“If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it,” argue opponents of a written constitution,
who insist that the existing arrangements, however piecemeal their
development has been, have worked well in practice.

The 2010 general election results have given us a taste of what
happens when no party wins an overall majority. With promise of a
referendum on voting and electoral reforms, we may be heading
towards an environment where deals and comprises are done to keep
a party in government.

Despite failing to win the election outright, Cameron retained the
goodwill of most of his MPs, forming a coalition with an opposing party –
– on what many of them regarded as dubious terms. Much of that
goodwill has vanished, driven out by resentment, grievance and
anger. Tory MPs not usually prone to excitement are describing their leader
in less than favourable terms.

The Lib-Con coalition programme sets out to provide for a dissolution of
Parliament if 55 per cent or more of the Commons votes in favour; consider a
wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional
representation; consider the ‘West Lothian question’; further Welsh
devolution; and amendments to the 1972 European communities act.

During the election campaign Cameron insisted that prime ministers
who take office in the middle of a parliamentary term should be
required to face a general election within six months. We are regularly
reminded that ours is a parliamentary system, not a presidential one, in
which there is no impediment to changing the prime minister mid-term
as past practice has demonstrated. In the absence of a written
constitution most people would not have the slightest idea what this
means.

Cameron also said the Conservatives would “scrap, reform or replace”
the human rights act 1998 which incorporates fundamental rights
enshrined in the European convention on human rights into UK law.

At a time when people’s trust in politics is at its lowest, the
government’s cynical push to reinforce their hands in power will
alienate people further away from political engagement. Perhaps, the
time is ripe to consider a written constitution to restore people’s trust in
politics.

At present, the UK’s constitution is not written in a single document, but
derives from a number of sources that are part written and part
unwritten, including accumulated conventions, works of authority, acts
of parliament, the common law, and EU law. A written constitution is a
formal document defining the nature of the constitutional settlement,
the rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and
governments in a codified form.

A written constitution could spell out the respective powers of the
government and parliament, boosting the ability of the Commons to
hold ministers to account. Parliament should have the right to approve
any decision to send British troops to war and surrendering the prime
minister’s power to appoint judges and approve bishops. The blueprint
could also outline the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens. This
is to develop a “more open 21st-century British democracy which
better serves the British people”.

A written constitution is the only logical, long-lasting and reliable forum
through which to advance additional rights to those in the human rights act. A constitution is the means by which the respective powers
of the courts, the government and parliament can be determined. It is
the appropriate vehicle for settling the relationship between domestic
and international law.

The consequence of devolution and further devolution has created a
quasi-federal Britain, House of Lords reforms and a redefinition of its
powers, elected city mayors, the establishment of the supreme court
and wide ranging electoral and voting proposals have all
strengthened the need for a written constitution. Is it not time that
Britain followed almost every other democracy by enacting one?

Whoever is the new leader of the Labour party should grapple with this issue
– dismantle the shackles of prejudices, tear down inequalities, sever
privileges, and create a colour blind society.

Make this a movement for change – our country, our hope for a better
future.

Photo: Mickal 2005